Its surprising how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit
[Editor: Caution - this article is only for those seeking the true answer.]
1. Neither Obama, Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz are natural born citizens. At the times they were born, their Fathers were not citizens. Location of birth is irrelevant. Those who insist that a person must be born within the US point to Section 212 of Vattel. But one must read all that Vattel wrote on the subject and which is contained in Sections 213-217.
A “natural born” citizen inherits his citizenship from his parents. Just as he inherits his eye and hair color from them, so he inherits his citizenship status. He is “born” with the hair and eye color his parents gave him, and he is “born” with the citizenship status they gave him. No provision in the Constitution made him a Citizen – no Act of Congress made him a Citizen – just as no provision in the Constitution or Act of Congress determined his eye or hair color. His citizenship, eye color, and hair color are all inherited from his parents. THAT’s what a natural born citizen is. READ all of the sections on this which Vattel wrote: By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular. In my first paper, you can find the links to Vattel and other original source documents illustrating the original intent of “natural born citizen”.
2. Our first generation of Presidents were all born as subjects of the British King. There were no US citizens until July 4, 1776 when we proclaimed our Independence. Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5 contains a grandfather clause which permitted our first batch of Presidents to qualify. They were citizens at the time of the Adoption of our Constitution.
3. It appears that both of Donald Trump’s Parents were Citizens at the time he was born. It is irrelevant that his Mother was an immigrant: She came here from Scotland; and later became a US Citizen during 1942 – several years before Donald was born. Donald is a natural born citizen eligible to be President. [But because of the doctrine of coverture which prevailed at the time of our Framing, the status of Donald’s Mother is probably irrelevant.]
4. I found another article on this topic which is excellent: http://www.latimes.com/…/la-oe-lee-is-ted-cruz-eligible-to-…
5. Our Country would be so much better off if people would stop spouting off about this subject until after they become well-informed. And they can’t become well-informed until they have studied this carefully using original source documents and read all the original source documents I cite in my first paper.
And you must detach the result you want from your thinking when you are studying. TRUTH sheds its own Light – and you will NEVER get that Light until you love TRUTH above all things including the outcome you want. I am well aware of the disgraceful cases where peoples’ views on this issue are determined by whom THEY want for President.
Read more on Publius-Huldah's Blog
For another view, see Horse Sense:
If Ted truly understood leadership and integrity he'd have been proactive on this issue. When it came up he would have made a public statement saying something like: "While I believe I am a natural born citizen and therefore eligible to be president, to put everyone's mind at ease I am going to seek a declaratory judgment from the court to settle this once and for all and put people's minds at ease. I love America and the Constitution and I am willing to abide by the decision of the court, even if it ultimately means I would have to drop out of the race."
That's what a leader and person of integrity does. They are proactive and do what's right regardless of the cost to themselves.
If he believes he's right, he should have nothing to fear. If he prevailed with the court it would preclude anyone from bringing the issue up any longer. But by not getting that from the court, it simply allows his attackers to continue to raise the issue and even litigate it. And if he's the nominee, it takes credibility away from him during the general election, which is the worst time it could happen.
But when Cruz doesn't do that, he's raising questions about his integrity no matter how this comes out. To double down and try to belittle a competitor (in this case Trump) with Alinsky-like responses designed to put doubt on the questioner, not answer the question, simply reduces his credibility.
We must understand how the Declaration Of Independence of 1776 has been bastardized by the replacement of the word "unalienable" ... for the word today as "inalienable". "unalienable rights" ... to be incapable of being alienated, that is, sold or transferred. "Inalienable rights" are rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred ... WITHOUT THE CONSENT ... of the one possessing such rights. Even in the Jefferson Memorial at Washington DC (built during FDR's term as President in 1943) they have it wrong.
"Without the Consent of the one possessing such rights" is irrelevant. As Samuel Adams said,
"In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not within the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." -- Sam Adams, 1774.
BTW, "inalienable" and "unalienable" are synonyms. Both mean "incapable of being alienated." Which means we still have the right whether government says we don't or not.
You're welcome, Michael. It's a difficult question that few understand, mostly because they don't look. But also because few have the ability to go back 250 years to understand what the words actually meant then. Understandable when we consider how the definition of words have changed in just the past decade. However, to truly understand the Constitution and its creation, it's necessary to do that extra homework. You and others on this thread have clearly done that and kudos to you for doing so.
In both of these cases, the Supreme Court did not look to the Fourteenth Amendment to define what a “natural born Citizen” is. Rather, both courts said that the meaning of that term must be found by resort to the "common law." What do both of these Supreme Court decisions tell us? First, they show that there is a difference between a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” and an Article II “natural born Citizen.” If the two terms were the same, the Supreme Court in both of these cases would not have said that the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is not contained in the Constitution, for the Fourteenth Amendment was already part of the Constitution and the Court could have easily said that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is contained right in the Fourteenth Amendment.
TO Marc 3 minutes ago on 1/18/2016. The natural born citizen is not taken from Common law. It is derived from natural law and the law of nations. See attached tutorial.
So I found a Supreme Court case that says it does. Granted I may be mixing Common Law and Natural Law.
All I know for sure is my article is longer that your. :-).
I'll have more later.
At some point in time clarification of what is a natural born citizen must be done - not by the courts and not by Congress nor by the media including FOX News and FOX Business.
Each person voting in November 2016 should be aware of the ramifications of casting a ballot for a citizen and not a natural born citizen presidential candidate.
The media and the candidates will ignorantly disregard or simply argue the merits of citizenship and ignore the law of nations as well as the natural law. Thomas Jefferson detailed 28 principles of Liberty.
First is "The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law." Attached is the beginning of a Restore America presentation I am working on. With any luck, I will be able to complete it and find some audiences to listen, watch and learn.
From the Horse Sense blog at; http://www.horsesenseblog.com/2016/01/john-quincy-adams-settles-cru...
"But I would like to suggest that the issue may be determined quite simply. Thanks not to attorneys, but to historians, we may be able to settle the meaning the founders intended. Then we simply need to put it into an amendment to the Constitution so it is defined once and for all."
That is why I have initiated a discussion forum under the Convention of States AFA topic called ANCHOR BABIES for President?? with a stated revision to Article II clause on presidential qualification requirements.
Let me know when and where your presentation takes place. I video tape all the interesting stuff like this.
Find my email address on my website under contact
@Bruce I have yet to hear Cruz or Rubio address the "natural born citizen" issue. They always claim they are legitimate citizens of the U.S. but that is not the question. Why won't either of them address the actual question? Cruz the brilliant attorney knows the answer to that and won't reveal the truth. Don't think Rubio is as bright as he seems because like Obama, he is totally scripted. I don't understand why republicans don't want a true answer to this issue. Yes, we are on a slippery slope when the republican grassroots falls for the hype of candidates with an agenda.
To address that issue would reflect UPON THEM why they allowed Obama to be "qualified" as our President !! The Senate IS RESPONSIBLE for what we have as President ... not the House.
If you were wishing to run for President and had the opportunity as a senator, and you were not a natural born and you knew Obama was not a natural born - wouldn't you ignore the subject?
Pat J - I can only speculate why Cruz and/or Rubio will not address the natural law and law of the nations truth. political ambition seems to come with blinders. I sent both a certified letter and got a receipt of delivery when the question of who was to be a Vice President in 2012. The letter detailed the POTUS requirements and stated they did not meet the requirements.
I received no other acknowledgement.